My favorite lens ...

[DonSchap]

Well, a number of people have asked: "Since you have all these lenses, how do you rate them in order of preference?"

Hey, it's a fair question ... and one I do take quite seriously, as I consider it. So, without further adieu, here's my personal rating, for what it is worth :rolleyes: :

SONY SAL-135F18Z - Carl Zeiss® Sonnar® T* 135mm f/1.8 (SONY) (ø77mm filter) (MFD=2.4-ft)
TAmROn SP AF70~200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO (SONY) (77mm-filter) (MFD=38in)
TAmROn SP AF 200~500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD (SONY) (ø86mm-filter) (MFD=10-ft)
TAmROn SP AF 17~50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) (SONY) (ø67mm-filter) (MFD=1.5-ft)
TAmROn SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD (IF) MACRO 1:1 (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø72mm-filter) (MFD=10-in.)
TAmROn SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di MACRO 1:1 (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø55mm-filter) (MFD=1-in.)
SONY SAL-50F14 - 50mm f/1.4 (SONY) (ø55mm filter) (MFD=1.5-ft)
TAmROn SP AF 28~75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical MACRO (IF) (SONY) (ø67mm-filter) (MFD=1.1-ft)
Konica-Minolta AF 17~35mm f/2.8-4 (D) (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø77mm-filter) (MFD=1.0-ft)
Tokina AT-X 840 AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø72mm-filter) (MFD=8.2-ft)
TAmROn AF18~250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro "All-in-one" zoom (SONY) (ø62mm-filter) (MFD=1.5-ft)
Konica-Minolta AF 24~105mm f/3.5-4.5 (D) (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø62mm-filter) (MFD=1.5-ft)
Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4 (ø49mm-filter)
Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 (ø49mm-filter)
Minolta AF 24mm f/2.8 (ø55mm-filter)
TAmROn AF 28~300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro "All-in-one" zoom (SONY) (ø62mm-filter) (MFD=1.5-ft)
SIGMA 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM (SONY) (ø77mm-filter) (MFD=9.4-in)
TAmROn AF 28~200mm f/3.8-5.6 original "All-in-one" zoom (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø72mm-filter) (MFD=6.9-ft, although w/ close-up filter ... 3.5 feet)
TAmROn "Powermaster" AF 28~200mm f/3.8-5.6 original "All-in-one" zoom (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø72mm-filter) (MFD=6.9-ft, although w/ close-up filter ... 3.5 feet)
TAmROn AF 70~300mm f/4-5.6 LD (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø62mm-filter) (MFD=5-ft)
Minolta AF 35~70mm f/4 MACRO (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø49mm-filter) (MFD=3-ft)
Tokina AF 20~35mm f/3.5-4.5 (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø72mm-filter)
Ozunon AF 70~210mm f/4.5 (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø55mm-filter) (MFD = 5-ft)
SONY SAL-1870 DT - 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 (SONY) (ø55mm filter) (MFD=1.5-ft)
Phoenix 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8 AF (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø72mm-filter) (MFD=6.9-ft)
Vivitar MF 500mm(1000mm) f/8(f/16) T-mount Reflex Lens (Canon/SONY/Minolta) (ø30.5mm (rear) & ø72mm-filter)


Don't get me wrong ... anything above #16 will probably provide good to great results. #18 thru #23 are better left to film cameras, not digital. Call them "focal length evaluation" lenses ... to determine which digital lens you will probably decide to go with. I figure that's a fair use of them.

The SONY SAL-135F18Z is what makes shooting the SONY system all worthwhile. I know that's a big tout, but after you shoot with this lens ... from then on, everything you shoot will be rated against it. It's just that good! :D

[seanhoxx]

All I can say is WOW!! and thats not all of your glass is it? I am surprised to see the Tamron 200-500 at number 3, I know it is a nice piece of glass but also big heavy and not a friend of low light, but thats not what the lens is for. From lots of your photos and they are very good photos also I thought some other lenses would be higher up. This really helps boost my plans on getting the 200-500.

[DonSchap]

I guess I went with IQ (Image Quality) ... over specific purpose, in this list. You will always by a lens for the range you want, but by using this list ... you will know what delivers the sharpest and well-focused shots from my collection of glass.

The 200-500 only weighs 43 ounces. That is not a heavy lens, at all, for this class. In fact, it is rather light in comparison. Yes, it is long ... but, you pay the cost for shortening it up in IQ. You should note that the Reflex 500mm is at the BOTTOM of the list for a good reason. It's light, plenty short and a P.O.S.! It is even lower than the "kit lens!" :rolleyes: I would probably only use it if I were skydiving ... and really bored.

[dr4gon]

:D My favorite lens ...

lenses :eek:

hmm interesting.... don's christmas buying guide! LOL :D

[e_dawg]

No surprise to see the ZA 135/1.8 at the top of your list. And I definitely agree that it is one of those lenses that makes Sony a compelling system choice. Honestly, I would have never considered Sony had it not been for the availability of top notch Zeiss glass.

I am surprised to see the Tamron 90 macro so far down on your list if IQ was the overriding factor.

With the standard zoom and long portrait lens out of the way, I had turned my attention to getting: (1) a macro, (2) a normal / wide prime, and (3) the 70-200/2.8 G

The 35/1.4 G is astoundingly expensive when you consider that Leica sells a top notch 25/1.4 for just over half the price, and the fact that it's not a stellar performer according to testing sites... needless to say, it's out of the running. I considered the 50/1.4, but I figured I would "kill two birds with one stone" by getting the Sony 50/2.8 macro, so I ordered one when it recently went on sale.

I balked at the price of the 70-200 G, so I picked up a "beer can" (Minolta 70-210/4 for those who are not familiar with the reference) to use while I ponder the need for a faster and better tele zoom. Am reluctant to consider the Tamron 70-200, as the one I tried out had horrendously slow AF in less than bright light.

I have a feeling that the 50 macro won't be long enough for some situations, so I was thinking about getting the Tamron 90 macro as a medium focal length macro. Interested in why you placed the Tamron 90 where you did...

[DonSchap]

I suppose I am influenced also by how much I do use them, also. The 17-50mm is a true bargain, balancing IQ against cost.

The 90mm f/2.8 does deliver a good shot ... but, there are moments (during MACRO use) where it also needs some help in the CA department, and that is where the 180mm f/3.5 steps in front of it, with its double LD elements. Also, the overall design of the 180mm over the 90mm, where it does not change shape also makes it a better MACRO when in use ... because the 90 "snorkels out" during focus. You can easily knock something over because it reaches out well over two inches. Pricewise, they are very close, these days. Either way ... it's not a tie, but really neck and neck. Is the 90mm f/2.8 sharper than the 17-50mm? YES, it's a razor-shot, but then again, the 90mm is NOT a zoom lens and its overall utility is limited. It's often "too long" for most of my work. I am sure I factored that in, also. Usability. I felt it was important. It has to be considered, otherwise we would all be using one great lens for everything. Asking yourself ... "how useful is this lens for the shot" ... factored in with its image quality. I rarely reach for the 90mm ... because, I am usually too close (in normal mode) if the shot calls for a 17-50mm. That's a heck of a focal length change. Again, I was determining my "favorite lenses" and with what I have, this is how they kind of stack up, in my mind.

The fixed focal lengths are usually "studio use" ... because, that is a lot of weight and space to have to tote them all. The reason I would chose to carry the 135mm f/1.8 ahead of the zooms is that it kind of fits right in the middle.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/135mmf18a700.jpg

I would use it to get the effective 200mm (weighed against a full frame) shot indoors and outdoors, because it is so sharp and bright. Since the 90mm limits you to a widest aperture f/2.8 ... and I would grab the TAMRON 70-200mm f/2.8 over it ... as the preferred utility choice ... sacrificing some sharpness (not a lot) for the focal range improvement. Also, the 70-200 focuses faster. That MACRO takes its time.

Again, what you shoot has so much to do with it ... it's rather nice having a wide selection choose from. Pack your stack as you need to. If I add the CZ 24-70 f/2.8 or the CZ 16-35 f/2.8, that means my wallet got a lot bigger. It hasn't grown this week, that's for sure. :rolleyes:

I hope that helps.

[Rooz]

the 180 is a nice macro lens but its just too darn big and heavy.

[DonSchap]

Well ... it is definitely a "tripod beauty", as it has the support ring, too.

180mm f/3.5 taken with the 90mm f/2.8
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/taken-with-90mm.jpg

Vice-versa!
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/Taken-with-180mm.jpg

Like I said, I just like the way it shoots, better.

[cdifoto]

Here's my favorite lens.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/gear/2007-02-27-011.jpg

[dr4gon]

Any other reason you chose the 135mm F/1.8 over the 85mm F/1.4? It seems like the 85mm would be more usable especially on the APS-C sensor. I'll have to try them out before making the decision obviously. The 85mm also has a larger aperture but I hear the 135mm is a tad sharper.

[DonSchap]

This year, I had originally been shooting to get an A900, after all the expensive shifts in the market ... it kind of killed my hobby options. The 135mm wound up in my bag as one of the final purchases prior to obtaining the FF body. Regretfully ... the body is still with the manufacturer, priced out of my (and that of many other's) reach ... for the moment. It appears to be around a $4500 outlay, just to get the base setup, with flash. Maybe the "savior" will have a financial plan to bring it back down ... time will tell ... or not.

In the meantime, though, the TAMRON SP AF 90mm f/2.8 MACRO is pretty close in Image Quality ... the massive advantage, of course, is the CZ 85mm's f/1.4 aperture. To get brighter and the bokeh, I go with the less-expensive SONY AF 50mm f/1.4 and crawl a bit closer. Maybe the subject won't notice the lesser glass. LOL.

Overheard at a recent shoot:
"Oh my God, you're not taking my picture with a $350 prime, are you? I was expecting the $1400 one, at the very least." :(

Also, the AF CZ 135mm f/1.8 is the longest, widest lens of its kind, currently available. Mounted on the APS-C sensor camera body, it's effectively a 200mm! Do you have any idea how much a "stabilized" 200mm f/2 shot cost with a Canon FF camera? Look it up ... it is staggering. Oh sure, you can have an EF 135mm f/2 USM lens place on a Canon EOS 50D ... but, you have no stability. You have to have a tripod to milk the slower speeds, indoors. "Lens IS" is not cheap for this puppy. We are discussing a $5000 lens ... and you still need the FF camera body to slap it on.

Remember, if it doesn't have "Zeiss" stamped on it ... it's probably someone else's lens! ;) Make do.

[dr4gon]

I figured it was those reasons you listed above. I really want to compare the 50mm F1.4 against the 85mm F/1.4 Zeiss. There has to be a reason in IQ that that Zeiss is much more highly rated than the 50mm. Another thing that gets me is the older Minolta lenses are more favored (dyxum) over the Sony and minolta RS versions. I'm sure there are some inconsistencies with multiple copies of the same lens, but the difference in score is apparent. My goal from now on as far as lenses and camera gear is concerned will be with IQ. I'd rather establish a good bag now and not look back. For exagmple, the MinO 50mm F/1.7 just wasn't cutting it for me. Even at 2.8 and smaller apertures, the Tamron performed better. The bokeh was nice I must admit, so that's why I'm looking at the Sony version. Don, you have both right? How do you think it compares? You offered me the Minolta version, is your Sony one optically better? Or do you just like the build and name of it? It also seems that right now the 135mm is sold out but the 85mm Zeiss is still available.

[DonSchap]

Well, I had these:

Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 (ø49mm) . . . . Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4 (ø49mm) . . . . SONY AF 50mm f/1.4 (ø55mm)

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/Mf17-Mf14-Sf14.jpg

The f/1.7 was a very sharp prime, but I sold it, recently. I just didn't need three 50mm lenses in my bag and I figured it
could be better put to use by someone else who really needed one.

The M f/1.4 was damaged, somehow, when I bought it. Even the repair depot could not figure out what was wrong
with it, so I recently, last year, had it gutted and rebuilt. It has been restored back to full operation. I will tell you
that I paid a pretty penny to get it up and running again. While it was in for repairs, I purchased the SONY f/1.4.

When the Minolta was returned, I shot them side-by-side and decided, after some really close scrutiny (they were really
close), the SONY had a bit more contrast in the shots ... the blacks were blacker. The SONY is now the preferred lens,
in my bag, but I did pay a premium price for it. The Minolta sits pretty idle, unless I hand off my second camera to
another photographer and they need it. The 50mm was the mainstay of all my film cameras, from day one.

I tell ya, those f/1.4s were exceptionally hard to find. You have no idea how angry I was to find it defective and be unable
to use it under f/2.8. f/1.7s were all over God's green acre, but I have only ever owned the one.

A lot of people shoot precise images, looking for defects. I come from a different school of thought that says, take a
really mundane shot and then look for defects. That's how you can really tell what you are going to get with a lens and
whether you want to shoot with it.

Different strokes, right? :rolleyes:

[DonSchap]

One other thing ... you need to consider is the additional expense of filters, not coordinating your lenses.

The TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO and the UWAs use the same diameter filters as the CZ 135mm f/1.8 -> ø77mm.

The CZ 85 f/1.4 is a ø72mm diameter filter ring. Luckily, if I did use that lens, I would be able to use the filters I have for the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 or the TAMRON SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD MACRO. Many others are not as fortunate, so you could tack on those costs, also.

The TAMRON SP AF 90mm f/2.8 DI MACRO uses a ø55mm filter, which is the same filter-ring diameter as the SONY AF 50mm f/1.4. That's convenient. :)

[sparkie1263]

Don I am trying to decide which lens to put on my Xmas list. The three I am thinking about are the Tamron 17-50, Tamron 28-75 or the Tamron 90 Macro. I really wanted the macro bit after reading this post I was think about the 17-50 but I am thinking I should get the 28-75. Decisions Decisions LOL
Frank

[DonSchap]

Just be careful with the 28-75mm ... I have had to return the ones I had to TAMRON for front focus issues. They were fixed (uh, "adjusted") and work great :D, but it did take some time. The warranty covers that kind of repair ... you just need to get it to them.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/a100-w-T28-75-f28.jpg

The 28-75mm f/2.8 is a Di lens (easily identified by the "gold lettering" on the black band around the middle of the lens) and was designed for Full Frame use, so on the α900 ... it would be totally transferable and excellent.

The 17-50mm f/2.8 is a Di-II lens (easily identified by the "black lettering" on the gold band around the middle of the lens)

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/a700-w-17-50.jpg

and would only be able to be used in CROP mode, on the α900. Both lenses are great. Obviously, the 28-75mm meets up with the 70-200mm or 70-300mm better, if that is a consideration, but the 17-50mm offers a wider frame, at the other end, except, of course, when mounted on the α900 (in CROP mode), where they would be the same.

[sparkie1263]

So the 90 Macro should be after one of these? I am thinking the 28-75 would be my choice.
Frank

[scotts630]

Don, i've noticed you send a lot(what seems like a lot to me,only having 3 lenses) in
to be fixed or adjusted. how does the new guys(myself) know if something just isn't
right or say not sharp enough? is this just an time will teach you thing or is their little tell tell signs i need to watch for? and is their a routine check up/adjustment time?
sorry if this seem like a stupid question.

[DonSchap]

The SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 MACRO is a specialty lens, in my opinion. If you are needing to get exceptionally close to objects, it is the lens to have (cost-wise). It is extremely sharp and still requires you to do the "manual zoom two-step" to properly frame.

The mission of the 17-50 or the 28-75 is basically a general one. They are the walk-arounds and allow you to stand in one place and get relatively wide or rather tight on an object. Some people prefer the 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 ... which offers an even more dynamic change, but it is rapidly darkening up, on the long end. I feel its IQ truly suffers when the wide apertures are used. A better choice for walking-around, in my opinon, is the utility lens 18-250 f/3.5-6.3. Yes, it compromises aperture, but it is fair in doing so. Outdoors, during the day, it is of minimal impact to brightness. Once again, whatever!

The solid looking shots, both indoors and outdoors, will come from the f/2.8 lenses ... and most lens reviews will agree with this assessment. If it is a TAMRON and has f/2.8 available to it ... you are going to get a nice, sharp focus.

[DonSchap]

Don, i've noticed you send a lot(what seems like a lot to me,only having 3 lenses) in
to be fixed or adjusted. how does the new guys(myself) know if something just isn't
right or say not sharp enough? is this just an time will teach you thing or is their little tell tell signs i need to watch for? and is their a routine check up/adjustment time?
sorry if this seem like a stupid question.

No, a great question.

The best test that I have seen, which kind of "tells the truth" is this:

Put your camera in "spot focus" mode
Take and place three "AA" batteries on a flat table top, staggered about one-inch apart, front to back, in a diagonal (/).

"Proper Focus"
42115

Set your lens to f/4 aperture
Focus on the center battery
Use a tripod to get a good, steady shot ... or a shutter release cable, if possible (best if you have BOTH), to prevent shaking of the camera. -> Take the image.
On your computer, review the image. Look to see which battery looks in focus. If it is the middle one, great ... test complete. If it is one of the other batteries ... oh, oh :eek:

"Front Focus" -> repair!
42116



Simple, right? You do not even need another lens to see the problem. You can do this type of test with ALL your lenses and determine if the focus is correct ... or screwed up. Just bear in mind the M.F.D. (minimum focus distance) and that your are beyond it. It can range from 8-inches to 10-feet! :eek: If you take a moment and click on MY GEAR LIST (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1510229&postcount=103), in my signature, I have posted M.F.D.s for all my lenses.

It really is hard for the repair guys to argue with this kind of depicted PROOF! :cool:

I hope this answers your question adequately. It doesn't always have to be hard to be right. :)

[sparkie1263]

I guess it is the 28-75 then. I wll have it shipped right to you for testing.LOL
Thanks
Frank
PS The pano is on its way for printing.

[dr4gon]

No, a great question.

The best test that I have seen, which kind of "tells the truth" is this:

Put your camera in "spot focus" mode
Take and place three "AA" batteries on a flat table top, staggered about one-inch apart, front to back, in a diagonal (/).

42115

Set your lens to f/4 aperture
Focus on the center battery
Use a tripod to get a good, steady shot ... or a shutter release cable, if possible (best if you have BOTH), to prevent shaking of the camera. -> Take the image.
On your computer, review the image. Look to see which battery looks in focus. If it is the middle one, great ... test complete. If it is one of the other batteries ... oh, oh :eek:

42116



Simple, right? You do not even need another lens to see the problem. You can do this type of test with ALL your lenses and determine if the focus is correct ... or screwed up. Just bear in mind the M.F.D. (minimum focus distance) and that your are beyond it. It can range from 8-inches to 10-feet! :eek: If you take a moment and click on MY GEAR LIST (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1510229&postcount=103), in my signature, I have posted M.F.D.s for all my lenses.

It really is hard for the repair guys to argue with this kind of depicted PROOF! :cool:

Thanks for the tip. I was wondering myself but didn't know the specifics of how to do it (1" apart) to check for front/back focus.

Also regarding 50mm, thanks.. I'll be going to the Sony Style store this week to see what's what and what I should get next. The more I look at the reviews and the numbers (photozone), I see the 135mm is a pretty clear winner for the IQ. Range is a different story, I'll have to use it and see. The 85mm also seems pretty far ahead of the 50mm/1.4 since it provides very clear IQ at the center and edge even at 1.4 and beyond.


I guess it is the 28-75 then. I wll have it shipped right to you for testing.LOL
Thanks
Frank
PS The pano is on its way for printing.

I think that's a great choice. I wish my 17-50mm had more range. But for wide shots, it's nice, but you could use your kit lens for that. Just do what don said ;) post if you aren't too sure. I think it should be obvious

I'm going to go through and test all my lenses in the coming week :).

[scotts630]

Thanks for the tip.

[AJ Gressette]

Hey Don, nice post on the Focus test.:D I think this is a great tip because so many Sony owners have complained about soft photographs.

I had to end up doing the same thing with my Alpha-7. Turns out it was not the lens but the camera. However I tested my lenses wide open because it was the 2.8 Sensor in the A-7 camera that was an issue. Several Minolta lenses at 2.8 and below had serious back focus. Lenses above 2.8 focused perfect. Sony replaced the SI Screen, Focus Screen and recalibrate the camera. It’s 100 percent better now. I was glad to see the Alpha-9 with the micro adjustment.:)

[e_dawg]

Any other reason you chose the 135mm F/1.8 over the 85mm F/1.4? It seems like the 85mm would be more usable especially on the APS-C sensor. I'll have to try them out before making the decision obviously. The 85mm also has a larger aperture but I hear the 135mm is a tad sharper.

I feel somewhat similar to Don if you aggregate his thoughts over several replies in this thread... Basically, that 85-90 mm on APS-C is a bit of a no-man's land... at ~130 mm in 35 mm FF terms, it's too long for portraits and general shots indoors in small / med sized rooms, but too short for longer range shots at or above ~200 mm in 35 mm FF equiv. It would be a good macro focal length, but I assume you want this to be a multi-purpose macro / portrait / low-light lens.

IMO, most people would be better served by a 50-70 mm f/2.8 macro prime for a multi-purpose macro / portrait / low-light lens on APS-C. The Nikkor AF-S 60/2.8 macro on APS-C is a perfect multi-purpose focal length. 50-70 mm is too short if you are an avid macro / insect photographer, but most people usually want macro capability for occasional use and for larger than insect sized close-ups.

I am thinking the Tammy 90 mm macro would be equally as good as a multi-purpose macro / portrait / low-light lens and was tempted to purchase it, but it wasn't on sale at my sources. They had the Tamron 90 on sale for every mount EXCEPT for the A-mount. :mad:

[e_dawg]

Don, that's a great little test for front/back focus. The only thing I would add is that one should do this many times at different distances (and at different focal lengths for a zoom lens).

I do this sort of thing all the time for my Nikon and Sony lenses to calibrate my lenses to the bodies, and I often find that the optimal setting varies with both zoom setting and focus distance. So if I need +13 to correct for front-focus at 24 mm @ infinity, I might need to use +6 to correct for front-focus at 70 mm @ 4 feet, or vice-versa.

IMO, take 3-4 shots near the minimum focus distance and 3-4 shots near infinity focus for a prime... if you have a zoom, repeat at both the wide and long ends.

[dr4gon]

I feel somewhat similar to Don if you aggregate his thoughts over several replies in this thread... Basically, that 85-90 mm on APS-C is a bit of a no-man's land... at ~130 mm in 35 mm FF terms, it's too long for portraits and general shots indoors in small / med sized rooms, but too short for longer range shots at or above ~200 mm in 35 mm FF equiv. It would be a good macro focal length, but I assume you want this to be a multi-purpose macro / portrait / low-light lens.

IMO, most people would be better served by a 50-70 mm f/2.8 macro prime for a multi-purpose macro / portrait / low-light lens on APS-C. The Nikkor AF-S 60/2.8 macro on APS-C is a perfect multi-purpose focal length. 50-70 mm is too short if you are an avid macro / insect photographer, but most people usually want macro capability for occasional use and for larger than insect sized close-ups.

I am thinking the Tammy 90 mm macro would be equally as good as a multi-purpose macro / portrait / low-light lens and was tempted to purchase it, but it wasn't on sale at my sources. They had the Tamron 90 on sale for every mount EXCEPT for the A-mount. :mad:

You still looking for one? lol ;)

[DonSchap]

What are you planning to replace it with, "dr4gon"?

[dr4gon]

What are you planning to replace it with, "dr4gon"?

iono lol, just asking. I'm not sure where I want to go to next. Gotta get me to the sony store to see lol...

Few up top:

Sony 70-300mm F/4-5.6 G SSM
Sony 135mm F/1.8 ZA T* Planar
Sony 24-70mm F/2.8 ZA T* Vario-Sonnar

Others I'm toying with the idea (no particular order):

Tamron 200-500mm
Tamron 10-24mm
Sony 16-80mm F/3.5-5.6
Sony 85mm F/1.4
Sony 50mm F/1.4

In time.... I really want to try the first two up top.

[DonSchap]

The CZ 135mm f/1.8 is a rare find at the SONY Style store. I found mine at Calumet Photographic, down the road, in Chicago.

SONY Style has the lower-end lenses, but I would call ahead before I made a trip specifically for that one. They may be able to special order it in, but these lenses are factory sealed. I would not take possession of it if it were not, unless they gave you a serious price break on it. If you are going to pay that kind of premium price for Zeiss certification ... no one touches the lens until it is in my hands. :cool:

[dr4gon]

The CZ 135mm f/1.8 is a rare find at the SONY Style store. I found mine at Calumet Photographic, down the road, in Chicago.

SONY Style has the lower-end lenses, but I would call ahead before I made a trip specifically for that one. They may be able to special order it in, but these lenses are factory sealed. I would not take possession of it if it were not, unless they gave you a serious price break on it. If you are going to pay that kind of premium price for Zeiss certification ... no one touches the lens until it is in my hands. :cool:

I'd by it online I'm almost positive.

I want to see what else they have and try whatever. It's not too far away and the next closest sony store is like in houston, austin, san antonio ... :eek:

Thanks for the heads up though.

[e_dawg]

You still looking for one? lol ;)

I guess so... but refresh my memory, how long have been looking for one? I thought I just mentioned it...

[DonSchap]

@ dr4gon: I added an image to your 50mm question, on the second page of this thread.

Use this LINK (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=341860&postcount=13) to get there.

[Elisha]

remember guys....you can haggle at the Sony Store. not on cheap items though.
don't know of they will do it on lenses but they were willing to do it on the A350 and A700 when i was there after i bought the A300.

[dr4gon]

remember guys....you can haggle at the Sony Store. not on cheap items though.
don't know of they will do it on lenses but they were willing to do it on the A350 and A700 when i was there after i bought the A300.

Yeah, will keep that in mind. Any idea how much 10% or more? That'd be at least $100.

Thanks don. I wonder if they would haggle on the 50mm F/1.4. Probably not worth it since I can get it new for $349 at amazon and other stores tax free.

[Elisha]

they offered $100 off for the A700 body only and $1000 on the A350 with kit-lens.

[DonSchap]

I was doing some lens checks (the battery test) and found out that my Minolta AF 24mm f/2.8 and Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 are "back-focusing." Yeah, that means the rear battery was in better focus than the center one was. Now, I have to get it aligned (adjusted). I have a local connection, but this will be the first Minolta alignment.

I'll let you know. LOL Almost there. :rolleyes:

[dr4gon]

lol, now you're making me scared to check mine.

[sparkie1263]

I already checked my Tamron. I Used the test with the paper and all the lines. I forgot where I found the test. I will google it and post it. Don's test is easier. I ame going to getaan index card and draw the three circles on it so I have it for future tests.
Frank

Here is the link http://focustestchart.com/chart.html

[jimr-pdx]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/gear/2007-02-27-011.jpg

Oh my - flashback to my early-70s Praktica SuperTL, $99 with TTL metering! I had the Pentacon 50 with the dashed rings just like that. Thanks for the memory jog.

[jimr-pdx]

for what it is worth :rolleyes: :

Konica-Minolta AF 17~35mm f/2.8-4 (D) (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø77mm-filter) (MFD=1.0-ft)
Tokina AT-X 840 AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø72mm-filter) (MFD=8.2-ft)
TAmROn AF18~250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro "All-in-one" zoom (SONY) (ø62mm-filter) (MFD=1.5-ft)


Ouch - I was planning to pay for the 18-250 by handing over the Tamron 17-35. It's a hard decision, I'd miss the bright and (ever-so-) slightly wider images. :confused: Ah, if the rest of live were only this easy.. :)

[DonSchap]

The TAMRON SP AF 17~35mm f/2.8-4 XR Di LD is a great lens, sharp and bright ... but, as far as usability goes ... the 18-250 does deliver a lot. If you do not have any long glass ... it is a pretty good solution for the "limited" budget.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/tamron18-250small.jpg


You can call it "the better than you can get from the P&S Camera equivicator!" :D

If you do grow out of it, it would be a great lens for another new photographer ... or to just have on hand for the vacation or a trip to the park with the kids.

[DonSchap]

I was doing some lens checks (the battery test) and found out that my Minolta AF 24mm f/2.8 and Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 are "back-focusing." Yeah, that means the rear battery was in better focus than the center one was. Now, I have to get it aligned (adjusted). I have a local connection, but this will be the first Minolta alignment.

I'll let you know. LOL Almost there. :rolleyes:

I checked with Precision Camera, CT and their online quote was $132 per lens, for the focus correction, because they are out-of-warranty. That's a little grim ... and I will check with United Camera and Binocular repair, here in Bensenville, and see what they want. Normally it is around $75 a lens, based on my initial 50mm f/1.4 repair, about a year ago.

Guess we shall see.

[seanhoxx]

Wow take a few days off, get busy and neglect the forums for a few more days, come back in and have tons of reading to do, and all kinds of things to try!! And I was wondering what to do to amuse myself over the long weekend, catch up on my learning here, and get my batteries out. And now Don has me thinking about a CZ 135mm LOL It never ends. Nice shot of the 50mm triplets Don......something strangely familer about that 1.7........

[DonSchap]

Wow take a few days off, get busy and neglect the forums for a few more days, come back in and have tons of reading to do, and all kinds of things to try!! And I was wondering what to do to amuse myself over the long weekend, catch up on my learning here, and get my batteries out. And now Don has me thinking about a CZ 135mm LOL It never ends. Nice shot of the 50mm triplets Don......something strangely familer about that 1.7........

Well ... welcome back, Sean ... been wondering where you wandered off to. Hope you got pictures. LOL ;)

We've had a trio of marginally warm days (45-degrees) for the Thanksgiving Day holiday ... which is a far cry from last year, which almost prohibited putting up the Christmas lights.

I suppose painting with light should be suggested with these additions to the houses. It has been two years since my last effects, in that regard. Tricky, tricky shooting ... to avoid overexposure (both from nature and the lights). Then again, some "overexposure" makes for some interesting night shots.

42190 (http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/2510/mostwonderful.mid)
(Click on image for some audio entertainment, too :D)

30-second exposure ... in Chicago, it wipes out a usually "black" sky ... and turns it ... a dirty orange. LOL

[Elisha]

i got myself a Beercan on Monday and i have yet to use it :-(

[DonSchap]

One of the reasons I developed this thread was to allow a rather simple rating system based on results I have experienced with each of my nearly 30 lenses. While the true cream of the crop do reside near the top, the trailing ones really should be left to film shooting and not mounted on digital cameras.

Just a warning for those who may be considering trying to make use of old stuff. Yes they will mount .. no, they will not lend themselves to bettering your photography. Shoot sharp! :D

[Peekayoh]

If you are saying that I can't take a sharp image with my "old stuff", you're wrong.
If you are saying that all modern lenses will take a sharper image than my "old stuff", you're wrong.
If you are saying that there are some modern lenses that will take a sharper image than my "old stuff", you're right.

Would I like a really expensive Zeiss Optic, absolutely.
Can I afford one, not yet but soooon.

[DonSchap]

What I am saying is you get what you get with what you have. Don't expect terrific results out of an old film lens on a digital. I just doing this for fun and have no agenda. That's your job.

I can shoot some outstanding images with the older primes ... I can also do it with the newer ones, too. The thing of it is ... I can almost guarantee terrific results out of the newer ones. I cannot say that with the older glass.

Obviously, there is a cut off ... because __________________________ <- (you can throw any one of the camera and lens manufacturers in this BLANK) have designed lenses that are, front the very start, poor optics. Why they insist on selling this CRAP to unsuspecting customers is, to me, almost criminal in nature. Wouldn't it be great to open a lens box and get impressive results out of it, honestly, straight from the box ... but, can we expect that? Certainly not and I have about a dozen lenses to prove my point. Even from what you would reasonably expect to be a properly working example .... nope, back they go for "adjustment." "Front focus"; "Back focus" ... heck I had one that the aperture flat out did not work ... and it was a "factory sealed" $2000 lens!

So equivicate as you wish ... you need to study the glass you use and test its performance on your camera ... or you are just shooting from a hole ... and an unknown performance level. This is YOUR obligation, as the photographer. Calibrate and tune your equipment, so when you do take that ONE OF A KIND SHOT ... you get the best you can with what you have.

And that's all I have to say about that. Yeah, right. :cool:

[dr4gon]

So, I went to the sonystyle store last night. They had the A900 :eek: and the Sony 50mm F1.4 and CZ 16-80mm, nothing else I really wanted to try. Sadly, the A900 was mounted with the 16-80mm, I have no idea what the hell they are thinking.......

The a900 has an awesome feel to it. It's quite big and the 5fps continuous burst is in short, amazing.

The 16-80mm didn't impress me. Except that it had 50mm-80mm covered, as expected. IQ wise, nothing to rave about.

The 50mm F/1.4 was very nice however. I'm still not sure how well it compares with the 85mm Zeiss, but judging from photozone's tests, it should stack up pretty nicely.

And regarding the 70-300 G SSM, I'm not sure that I really need something like that since the 70-200mm IQ is just as good, if not better assuming it's about like Sony's 70-200mm.....

[Peekayoh]

I agree; you get what you pay for.
I agree; the "free" kit lenses are dire.
I agree; Premium glass offers the opportunity for the best result.
I agree: "old" glass without digital coatings may suffer from CA and flare.
I agree: some "old" glass is as bad as the current kit lens.

but there is good "old" glass out there to be had and
With the right "old" glass I still expect terrific results. I may be proven wrong but I remain an optimist.

When I got the A700 I couldn't wait to try it out (obviously) so I took some shots in the garden to try out my new toy.
The attached picture (iso 100, f5.6, 1/250th, 100% crop, no post processing, heavily (7) compressed for posting)
was taken with a 20+ year old Minolta 35-70mm f4 zoom available on eBay for £35 ($50)

My Rose Bush is looking a bit worse for wear (amazing it's still got blooms in November) but
I believe (IMO) it's sharp within the DOF, the colour's great and the Bokeh reasonable. The Bokeh has suffered from the compression and looks much better on the original.

Now I'm not offering it up as a masterpiece, just saying that, considering the lens and
that not a lot of thought went into the shot, it stands up quite well. My 28-135mm f4/4.5 should be better.

I'm certain a "G" lens or Zeiss optic will give better results when I can afford it
but in the meantime I'm far from unhappy and if I have to work a bit harder to get a keeper, thats no bad thing.
Working with a less than perfect optic, understanding and allowing for it's shortcomings can only make for a better photographer.

[TenD]

What I am saying is you get what you get with what you have. Don't expect terrific results out of an old film lens on a digital. I just doing this for fun and have no agenda.

I had decided to refrain from dispensing any kind of information on this forum anymore, but I can't stand by and listen to this line of BS again.

Good old lenses are still good lenses on digital equipment. If it was a bad lens on film, it'll be a bad lens on digital. In a lot of cases I would prefer some previous models, they are sharper, and less expensive(in Sony land an example would be the "beer can" or the 50mm f/1.7. The "digital" lens is a lot of hype designed to sell new lenses and keep you from the old lenses.

I have a FF and crop body and not a single "digital" lens. My favorite lens is 16 years old, it's sharp, contrasty, and has excellent color and bokeh. I only have one lens that was designed in the digital age. Yet I get excellent, sharp, contrasty, results, every one of my lenses was a good lens on film too. I would be careful what you purchase, but don't be afraid at all of buying old glass that was good on film, it will be good on digital too.

Don, you are just plain wrong on this and dispensing this kind of information is irresponsible...unless you happen to work for....say Tamron or something. You constantly contradict yourself by saying one of the advantages of a Sony is being able to use your old Minolta lenses on it, then you go and say an old lens isn't any good on a digital camera. That may be true for a lot of Tamron lenses, but that is because they were horrible on film cameras too.

Peek, it's really annoying when a member posts a photo as large as the one above, it stretches out the forum and makes it really hard to read a post, as well as making it hard to see the posted photo. 800 pixels on the long side is plenty big to view a photo on the web, and if there is a detail you are trying to show, then a crop with the same 800 pixel dimension works well.

[DonSchap]

A foine, foine man ya are, "TenD" ... and I appreciate the counter-challenge to the proof
I can provide to my ajudications. Just be a little patient, as I set this up ... I am a little
busy attending to Christmas decorations and all. Have to keep the neighborhood looking
merry and bright, despite the political season. :rolleyes:

Thanks, again.

[Rooz]

Have to keep the neighborhood looking
merry and bright, despite the political season. :rolleyes:.

whats the political season ?

[Peekayoh]

Peek, it's really annoying when a member posts a photo as large as the one above, it stretches out the forum and makes it really hard to read a post, as well as making it hard to see the posted photo. 800 pixels on the long side is plenty big to view a photo on the web, and if there is a detail you are trying to show, then a crop with the same 800 pixel dimension works well.

Gotcha TenD.
I was trying to include enough to show what was in focus and out of focus; but point taken.
Peter

[AJ Gressette]

Here are some old MTF Data on Minolta from old photodo.com. Not every lens was tested.

http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

[DonSchap]

As school has progressed, the business of photography course that I am currently enrolled in provided us with an imaginary budget of $35,000 and they said, "go forth and ... augment."

Well, this caused me to sit down and review the current round-up of glass that I am using and I wanted to take a moment and re-evaluate how I see these lenses and how they rank in my use (YMMV, of course ;) ):

135mm f/1.8 SONY AF SAL-135F18Z - Carl Zeiss® Sonnar® T* (SONY) (ø77mm filter) (MFD=2.4-ft) {Jul 2008} (Japan)
200mm f/2.8 APO G HS Minolta AF (ø72mm-filter) (MFD=5-ft) {Aug 2009} (Japan)
24~70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM SIGMA AF (SONY) (ø82mm-filter) (May 2010)
70~400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM (IF) SONY (Minolta/SONY) (ø77mm-filter) {July 2010} (Japan)
70~200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO TAmROn SP AF (SONY) (77mm-filter) (MFD=38in) (September 2008 ) (Japan)
200~500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD TAmROn SP AF (SONY) (ø86mm-filter) (MFD=10-ft) {July 2008} (Japan)
12~24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG ASPHERICAL SIGMA AF (SONY) (May 2010)
14mm f/2.8 Aspherical (IF) Rectilinear TAmROn SP AF (Minolta AF) (filter N/A - uses rear gel holder) (MFD=7-in.) {Jun 2009} (Japan)
28~75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) TAmROn SP AF (SONY) (ø67mm-filter) (MFD=1.1-ft){July 2008} (Japan) - will reduce
17~35mm f/2.8-4 (D) Konica-Minolta AF (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø77mm-filter) (MFD=1.0-ft){July 2008} (Japan) - will reduce
50mm f/1.4 SONY AF SAL-50F14 (SONY) (ø55mm filter) (MFD=1.5-ft) {Nov 2007} (China)
180mm f/3.5 Di LD (IF) MACRO 1:1 TAmROn SP AF (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø72mm-filter) (MFD=10-in.) {Sept 2007} (Japan)
20mm f/1.8 (D) EX Aspherical DG DF RF SIGMA AF (ø82mm-filter) {May 2009} (Japan)
90mm f/2.8 Di MACRO 1:1 TAmROn SP AF (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø55mm-filter) (MFD=1-in.) {Oct 2007} (Japan)
85mm f/2.8 DT SONY AF SAL-85F28 (ø67mm-filter) (MFD=2-ft.) {Sept 2010}
28mm f/2.8 Minolta AF (ø49mm-filter) {Oct 1985} (Japan)
24mmf/2.8 Minolta AF (ø55mm-filter) {Aug 2008} (Japan) - will reduce
80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AT-X 840 Tokina AF (SONY/Minolta AF) (ø72mm-filter) (Japan) - will reduce


Then, I had to consider new ideas for growth ... and came up with this list of refined glass improvement ...

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM AF
Sony Distagon T* 24mm f/2 SSM Wide Angle
Sony SAL-35F14G Wide Angle 35mm f/1.4G
Sony CZ 85mm f/1.4

Which represents about $7000. :rolleyes:

The thing is ... these replace a few lenses in the existing list, so there are some subtractions to be made, eventually. I have noted the reduction, but then again ... I cannot rent most things, because SONY still is not that popular around here. Then again, I was once told: "It's all about acquisition." :D